ObjectivesTo assess an intervention for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) improvement within surgical teams focused on addressing barriers and fostering enablers and ownership of guideline compliance.DesignThe Queensland Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis (QSAP) study was a multicentre, mixed methods study designed to address barriers and enablers to SAP compliance and facilitate engagement in self-directed audit/feedback and assess the efficacy of the intervention in improving compliance with SAP guidelines. The implementation was assessed using a 24-month interrupted time series design coupled with a qualitative evaluation.SettingThe study was undertaken at three hospitals (one regional, two metropolitan) in Australia.ParticipantsSAP-prescribing decisions for 1757 patients undergoing general surgical procedures from three health services were included. Six bimonthly time points, pre-implementation and post implementation of the intervention, were measured. Qualitative interviews were performed with 29 clinical team members. SAP improvements varied across site and time periods.InterventionQSAP embedded ownership of quality improvement in SAP within surgical teams and used known social influences to address barriers to and enablers of optimal SAP prescribing.ResultsThe site that reported senior surgeon engagement showed steady and consistent improvement in prescribing over 24 months (prestudy and poststudy). Multiple factors, including resource issues, influenced engagement and sites/time points where these were present had no improvement in guideline compliance.ConclusionsThe barriers-enablers-ownership model shows promise in its ability to facilitate prescribing improvements and could be expanded into other areas of antimicrobial stewardship. Senior ownership was a predictor of success (or failure) of the intervention across sites and time periods. The key role of senior leaders in change leadership indicates the critical need to engage other specialties in the stewardship agenda. The influence of contextual factors in limiting engagement clearly identifies issues of resource distributions/inequalities within health systems as limiting antimicrobial optimisation potential.

No abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Background: Clinical guidelines on infection prevention strategies in healthcare workers (HCWs) play an important role in protecting them during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Poorly constructed guidelines that are not comprehensive and are ambiguous may compromise HCWs safety. We aimed to develop and validate a tool to appraise guidelines on infection prevention strategies in HCWs. Methods: A 3-stage, web-based, Delphi consensus-building process among a panel of diverse HCWs and healthcare managers was utilised. We validated the tool by appraising 40 international, specialty-specific and procedure-specific guidelines along with national guidelines from countries with a wide range of gross national income. Results: Overall consensus (>75%) was reached at the end of three rounds for all six domains included in the tool. The chosen domains allowed appraisal of guidelines in relation to general characteristics (domain-1), recommendations on engineering (domain-2) and administrative aspects (domain 4-6) of infection prevention, as well as personal protection equipment (PPE) use (domain-3). The appraisal tool performed well across all domains and inter-rater agreement was excellent. All included guidelines performed relatively better in domains 1-3 compared with domains 4-6 and this was more evident in guidelines originating from lower income countries. Conclusion: The guideline appraisal tool was robust and easy to use. Recommendations on engineering aspects of infection prevention, administrative measures that promote optimal PPE use and HCW wellbeing were generally lacking in assessed guidelines. This tool may enable health systems to adopt high quality HCW infection prevention guidelines during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and may also provide a framework for future guideline development.